Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 593–600 | Cite as

Potential for Bias in the Context of Neuroethics

Commentary on “Neuroscience, Neuropolitics and Neuroethics: The Complex Case of Crime, Deception and fMRI”
  • Stephanie J. Bird
Commentary

Abstract

Neuroscience research, like all science, is vulnerable to the influence of extraneous values in the practice of research, whether in research design or the selection, analysis and interpretation of data. This is particularly problematic for research into the biological mechanisms that underlie behavior, and especially the neurobiological underpinnings of moral development and ethical reasoning, decision-making and behavior, and the other elements of what is often called the neuroscience of ethics. The problem arises because neuroscientists, like most everyone, bring to their work assumptions, preconceptions and values and other sources of potentially inappropriate bias of which they may be unaware. It is important that the training of neuroscientists, and research practice itself, include open and in-depth discussion and examination of the assumptions that underlie research. Further, policy makers, journalists, and the general public, that is, the consumers of neuroscience research findings (and by extension, neurotechnologies) should be made aware of the limitations as well as the strengths of the science, the evolving nature of scientific understanding, and the often invisible values inherent in science.

Keywords

Bias in research Neurobiology of ethics Neuroethics Neuroscience Public policy Research practice Responsible conduct of research RCR Teaching neuroethics Teaching neuroscience 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my colleagues Michael Kalichman, Dena Plemmons, Elizabeth Cervantes and Dave Kukla for their valued input and perspective.

References

  1. Baker, M. (2012). Independent labs to verify high-profile papers. Nature News, August 14. http://www.nature.com/news/independent-labs-to-verify-high-profile-papers-1.11176. Accessed 6 Sep 2012.
  2. Begley, S. (2012). In cancer science, many “discoveries” don’t hold up. Business Financial News, March 28. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328. Accessed 6 Sep 2012.
  3. Bennett, C. M., & Miller, M. B. (2010). How reliable are the results from functional magnetic resonance imaging? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191, 133–155. http://prefrontal.org/blog/2010/02/paper-how-reliable-are-the-results-from-functional-magnetic-resonance-imaging/. Accessed 6 Sep 2012.
  4. Bird, S. J. (2003). Communicating scientific advice to the public, The IPTS Report 72 (March): 20–24. The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.Google Scholar
  5. Bird, S. J. (2005). Neuroethics. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics (pp. 1310–1316). Detroit, USA: Macmillan Reference.Google Scholar
  6. Bird, S. J. (2009). Neuroethics. In L. Squire (Ed.), Encyclopedia of neuroscience (pp. 385–391). Oxford: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bird, S. J., & Parlee, M. B. (2000). Of mice and men (and women and children): Scientific and ethical implications of animal models. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 24, 1219–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cartwright, S. A. (1851/1981). Report on the diseases and physical peculiarities of the Negro race. The New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal (May 1851): 691–715. Reprinted in A. L. Caplan, H. T. Engelhardt Jr., J. McCartney (Eds.), Concepts of health and disease: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 305–332). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  9. Chan, A.-W., Krleza-Jeric, K., Schmid, I., & Altman, D. G. (2004). Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian institutes of health research. Canadian Medical Association, 171(7), 735–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Damasio, A. R. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  11. Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  12. Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man, revised and expanded. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  13. Guertin, R. P. (1995). Commentary on: ‘‘How are scientific corrections made?’’ (N. Kiang). Science and Engineering Ethics, 1(4), 357–359.Google Scholar
  14. Henry, S., & Plemmons, D. K. (2012). Neuroscience, neuropolitics and neuroethics: The complex case of crime, deception and fMRI. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9393-4.
  15. Hoffman-Kim, D. (1995). On being a ‘postdoctoral’ scientist. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1(3), 311–312.Google Scholar
  16. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lampe, M. (2012). Science, human nature, and a new paradigm for ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9373-8.
  18. Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 326(7400), 1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lo, B., & Field, M. J. (Eds.). (2009). Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  20. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Longino, H. E., & Doell, R. (1983). Body, bias and behavior: A comparative analysis of reasoning in two areas of biological science. Signs, 9, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marino, G. (2004). Before teaching ethics, stop kidding yourself. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(24), B5.Google Scholar
  23. Mumford, M. D. (2012). Handbook of organizational creativity. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Olson, S. (1989). On being a scientist (1st ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  25. Roskies, A. (2002). Neuroethics for the new millennium. Neuron, 35, 21–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith-Rosenberg, C., & Rosenberg, C. (1973/1981). The female animal: Medical and biological views of woman and her role in nineteenth-century America. The Journal of American History (Sep 1973): 332–356. Reprinted in A. L. Caplan, H. T. Engelhardt Jr., and J. J. McCartney (Eds.), Concepts of health and disease: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 281–303). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  27. Stenmark, C. K., Antes, A. L., Wang, X., Caughhron, J. J., Theil, C. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2010). Strategies in forecasting outcomes in ethical decision-making: Identifying and analyzing the causes of the problem. Ethics Behavior, 20, 110–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham, London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Venet, D., Dumont, J. E., & Detours, V. (2011). Most random gene expression signatures are significantly associated with breast cancer outcome. PLoS Computational Biology, 7(10), e1002240. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002240. http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1002240. Accessed 6 Sep 2012.
  30. White, T. I. (2007). In defense of dolphins: The new moral frontier. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WrenthamUSA

Personalised recommendations